This is written for people who still haven't made up their mind about who or what Miles Mathis is. I still give him the benefit of the doubt but I read some strange things in the paper "Let's put the Spotlight on Spotlight".

I think the research in the paper is good and can agree the story about journalists helping to expose some pedophile priests was made up. I do have some questions about his genealogy research that I want to address in another topic.

But this is on the second to last page:

So how do we explain that? Well, logically, it indicates one of three things: either the Church was completely in on it from the start, they were infiltrated, or they were blackmailed into silence.What do I mean by blackmailed? Well, if the Church wasn't in on it, and was only a target, we would have expected them to have blown the project completely. They would have gone on TV and told everyone these priests and bishops weren't real Catholics and weren't working for them. It should have been pretty easy to do. Except for one thing: it would require blowing the MATRIX entirely. If you go on TV and tell the world that top state officials and wealthy families are staging major show trials and placing huge fake stories in the top newspapers, you have just blown not only the current project, but all projects—including your own.

It should have been pretty easy to do. Really?The rest of the quote also shows his lack of understanding about how the "MATRIX" works. It could have written by another person than the one doing the research.

And then this:

Of course this begs a very big question, one I cannot really dodge after all I have said above. If I admit the Catholic Church is part of the big historical con, why shouldn't I support this project run against it?

Does someone interested in the truth have to justify why he doesn't support a project based entirely on deception? A project that has an impact not only on Catholics but on all people, as he showed earlier?

As a reader, I would say that this is really unnecessary, actually a waste of his time. I would suppose his supporters would agree.

And what about the content of his justification? It boils down to this: They are evil but still better than the "plutocrats", their supposed opponents. I am open to that but can you really hope to show that in 2 paragraphs? I am not impressed:

...Catholics, who have given us some of the greatest artin history... The church was honest.

??

OK this should be taken into context, he is obviously referring to a particular period in history and on a particular subject. Probably a time when the church was more powerful than today. But then why should it have weight on Miles' behavior today ? Earlier he wrote that the church cons the masses each day and depends on the MATRIX for his daily existence.What do native English speakers think of his use of the word "admit" in the second quote? Notice that he has not brought any evidence for his claims about the church.

Instead of this waste of time, I would have liked him to explore the other interesting possibilities he mentioned:'Either the Church was completely in on it from the start, they were infiltrated,'

Did the church had anything to gain with this particular hoax? Possibly, It could have drawn the public attention away from real victims and perpetrators. Because it was fake there was zero risk that secrets would be brought to light. In other words: everything was controlled.

An interesting question that he didn't ask is "was it a reality that "the church" covered up cases of pedophilia, thereby putting more children at risk?. I think so. I am not exactly defending the Catholics here but keep in mind that it is the majority religion for my country and for my family.

Staying close to the subject of the paper, I was wondering if anybody would like to take a closer look at a world famous pedophile from Belgium, Marc Dutroux. I find it hard to do myself, but I could help providing the stories. There is a conspiracy theory that I think most Belgians who want to know the truth take very seriously, with much support in the mainstream media. It contains much more horrible elements than the official theory. But it is entirely possible that both the official and the conspiracy theories contain fabrications, possibly to protect other pedophiles.

One of the most silly stories was his escape on 23/4/1998 that led directly to the resignation of 2 top ministers and a historical police reform.

Another silly story: Marc Dutroux made a home video of himself building a secret room in his basement, where he would hold his victims captive. During a home search the video was seized by the police. Had they watched it, 2 of his victims would have survived. It was sent to a laboratory where there was no video player available, so it was not watched for a year.

Here is a list of names of important characters:

Marc Dutroux (Du trou= from the hole)Michelle Martin: his wife and accompliceMichel Lelièvre: accomplice, betrays him after arrest (Le lièvre= the hare)Bernard Weinstein: former accomplice, murdered by Dutroux after being drugged (wein=wine stein=stone, Zweinstein is the name of the school of witchcraft, Hogworts in the Dutch translation of Harry Potter)Michel Nihoul: convicted swindler with the face of a gangster, gangleader of Dutroux according to the conspiracy theory, but only convicted of selling drugs to him

Michel Bourlet: 1 of the 4 judges investigating the caseMichel Bouffioux: investigative journalist, one of the 3 most important proponents of the conspiracy theoryMichel Fourniret: French serial killer without direct connection to Dutroux but with many, many similarities, was also investigated by both Michel Bourlet and Michel Bouffioux

Rene Michaux: policeman in charge of shadowing Dutroux, accused of protecting him or at least being incompetent, national scapegoat Stéphane Michaux: forester that discovered Dutroux after his escape, national hero

Michel (pronounced just like Michelle Obama) is not an unusual name in Belgium but not that common. In my Thunderbird address book I counted only 1 Michel for 1394 e-mail addresses.

Interesting points. I had just assumed the child abuse scandals were real cases. One aspect might be the commercial value of these stories to media corporations. With one sexual abuse case they can keep people engaged by leaking out more and more shocking details bit by bit. Years after the trial they are still selling books about the case written by people involved.

I suspect there is also a political element. I already mentioned the immediate political consequences of his brief escape. Looking at the news images from that period, it looks like the media and the parents of the victims are working together to bring this about.

Around 1:45 we see Paul Marchal, father of one of the dead girls. It looks as if he is interviewed in front of his house. I don't know if it is just before or after Dutroux' recapture. He looks happy and amused. He says : "Ik vind alleszins dat toch duidelijk gebleken is dat de minister van binnenlandse zaken en van justitie totaal onbekwaam zijn."translation: "I find that it has become apparent that the interior minister and justice minister are totally incompetent."

It reminds me also, it seems strange how the Church is so supportive of inviting in large numbers of non-Catholic immigrants. If you go back through history the compact is always the official Church of the state gives the rulers divine authority to rule. In exchange the state grants the official Church a monopoly on religion in the country(through using the state's its monopoly on force to outlaw any other religion).

The idea that Church leaders would eagerly welcome competing religions into an area which they control, is mindboggingly stupid. It seems like they are intentionally trying to destroy the religion.

With the power and wealth of the Catholic Church, if pedophilia accusations came up, I would have thought they would have used their power to silence coverage of such a trial. So either the Church does not possess that much power anymore, or they approved of and supported the coverage.

aa5 » February 10th, 2017, 9:50 am wrote:With the power and wealth of the Catholic Church, if pedophilia accusations came up, I would have thought they would have used their power to silence coverage of such a trial. So either the Church does not possess that much power anymore, or they approved of and supported the coverage.

You'll have to forgive my ignorance on this particular topic, as I haven't paid much attention to these stories over the years.

But I wanted to comment on your observation above. I don't consider those options to be mutually exclusive.

It's likely the Catholic Church doesn't have as much power as it did in the past, and it has approved and supported this coverage.

It's an effective way to simulate accountability, sort of like a US Attorney (federal prosecutor in the U.S.) "prosecuting" a Senator. It creates a powerful illusion, and serves as a warning to everyone else that nobody is "above the law", or something like that.

Moreover, it makes anyone in their system susceptible to all sorts of control. Just the fear of being "accused" would be enough to get a person to do whatever he is told. The truth be damned. . . naturally.

So, my personal instinct (for what it's worth) is that these institutional pedophile stories are part of a larger effort to engineer and control society.

And lest anyone misunderstand my comment, I'm certain there are sick bastards out there who really do commit sex crimes involving children of all ages.

Seneca » 07 Feb 2017, 12:22 wrote:Staying close to the subject of the paper, I was wondering if anybody would like to take a closer look at a world famous pedophile from Belgium, Marc Dutroux. I find it hard to do myself, but I could help providing the stories. There is a conspiracy theory that I think most Belgians who want to know the truth take very seriously, with much support in the mainstream media. It contains much more horrible elements than the official theory. But it is entirely possible that both the official and the conspiracy theories contain fabrications, possibly to protect other pedophiles.

I did some research into Marc Dutroux and will post it for future researchers:An element of the official story that is very unbelievable is the idea that Marc Dutroux made different home video's in which his crimes are documented. I already mentioned the video in which he is making his "dungeon". Allegedly he also filmed 2 different rapes, an abduction (for which he apparently wasn't convicted) and vehicles he stole. Another story that doesn't makes sense is that when he was in prison (for stealing vehicles), his house was burglared by neighbors. The house was already twice searched by the police and about 100 videos were taken, yet the burglars managed to find a computer and a bunch of videos. Later the police tries to track down the stolen items.Source: https://archive.org/stream/XDossiersDe- ... 9_djvu.txt, citing police records.

I think the main conspiracy theories were divulged in a way that would divide the Belgian people. To show this I have to give some background info. In1983 stories started to appear in the journal "Humo" and the paper "De Morgen" both considered leftist publications. During a divorce case, a women accused her husband, a right-wing notary, of raping their 2 sons. She also told he was involved in a pedophile network that involved high ranking politicians judges.. The criminal investigation was "leaked to the papers" where the notary was given an alias "Notaris X". The Belgian population was divided: many believed the mother and in a right-wing pedophile conspiracy and coverup but many thought that the mother had made these stories up to get custody of the children.

So now after the imprisonment of Dutroux allegedly many witnesses came forward that told Dutroux was part of a pedophile network involving high ranking politicians and bureaucrats. Supposedly to keep their anonymity the witness were given an aliases: X1, X2, X3... First the witnesses were given credibility because according to the police they had info that they couldn't have known otherwise. Later the witnesses were accused of making it all up and the investigation stopped (suggesting a coverup).Even the proponents of the conspiracy theory were referring to the testimonies as "the X-files", thus comparing them with things like UFOs but also with the Notaris X case. The proponents were the same media outlets that brought the Notaris X case (Humo and De Morgen). So automatically you had believers and non-believers, to this day.